Potential snag for car-light folks (insurance)

[Buglady]

I just found out that in the province of Alberta, if you do not have a car insured in your name for more than a year, if you then want to go back to car use, your insurance rates go SKY HIGH. Basically they hit the reset button and put you back to the same rate as someone who's never driven at all. :eek: I'm a 34 year old woman with a spotless driving record, but because I have not had my name on a car insurance policy since 2005, they want to charge me the same yearly insurance rate as a 16 year old boy!! That's what I get for trying to be green.... :rolleyes:

So if you're going carfree/car light in Alberta, this might be something to keep in mind. It might not be a bad idea to try to have your name on a family member's car insurance just so you don't get totally soaked later on.

(The reason I wanted insurance was that I'm starting a craft business and it's a little hard to transport everything to the farmer's market by bike (at least until I get that Xtracycle built, and that IS in the works). My boyfriend tried to put me on his policy as an occasional driver and the insurance company promptly tripled his premiums. We are rather annoyed, needless to say! :mad: *moves Xtracycle up priority list*)

[gwd]

I just found out that in the province of Alberta, if you do not have a car insured in your name for more than a year, if you then want to go back to car use, your insurance rates go SKY HIGH. Basically they hit the reset button and put you back to the same rate as someone who's never driven at all. :eek: I'm a 34 year old woman with a spotless driving record, but because I have not had my name on a car insurance policy since 2005, they want to charge me the same yearly insurance rate as a 16 year old boy!! That's what I get for trying to be green.... :rolleyes:

So if you're going carfree/car light in Alberta, this might be something to keep in mind. It might not be a bad idea to try to have your name on a family member's car insurance just so you don't get totally soaked later on.

(The reason I wanted insurance was that I'm starting a craft business and it's a little hard to transport everything to the farmer's market by bike (at least until I get that Xtracycle built, and that IS in the works). My boyfriend tried to put me on his policy as an occasional driver and the insurance company promptly tripled his premiums. We are rather annoyed, needless to say! :mad: *moves Xtracycle up priority list*)
Good for Alberta. This policy encourages people who become car free to stay car free.

[Buglady]

It's something I would have liked to know about beforehand. Car free is all well and good but a lot of us would like to have a middle ground option, especially with regard to business use. I don't think this policy so much "encourages" car free as it "enforces," and that rankles. However, I realize there are many people in this forum who believe all cars are evil, so I will leave it at this. It is a piece of information that other people may or may not find useful.

[Cosmoline]

I don't think this has anything to do with a car-free public policy folks. It's just another way the insurers can squeeze you.

[divergence]

Good for Alberta. This policy encourages people who become car free to stay car free.
Joking, I hope?

The policy is idiotic, and frankly insulting. It's based on the assumption that people who have spent any time without a car are irresponsible and untrustworthy.

I am curious about one thing, though. Buglady, after you buy your new policy, how long do they leave you in the high-risk category? Integrated over time, do you end up paying more in rate surcharges than you saved by not buying insurance for a couple of years?

[Raiyn]

All this after a year? Makes me rather nervous after 10 to see what mine would look like.
The amusing part of all this is I have a "Safe Driver" notation on my DL.

[JunkyardWarrior]

well my take on it is maybe they assume someone lost their license for a yr.....then again i think they'd be able to check that kinda stuff...........they did the same thing with my moms house insurance..........and in thier mind why would any sain person CHOOSE to stop driving a car

i guess they consider all drivers a risk at this point...............hopefully they dont follow the lead of house insurance companies and decide who they wanna pay for claims

[gwd]

Joking, I hope?


I didn't think the policy intended to encourage people to stay car free just noting the effect.

[Roody]

Same thing here in Michigan. In fact if your car insurance lapses for a day, they put you in the high risk pool and charge more.

One less worry if you're carfree. :)

[timmhaan]

i'm not surprised, and i know that we will be in the same boat if we decide to get a car ever. my GF and I have both been without auto insurance for about 5-6 years now.

i also couldn't get insurance once when i was between jobs and looking for work. talk about kicking you when you're down.

[energyandair]

I just found out that in the province of Alberta, if you do not have a car insured in your name for more than a year, if you then want to go back to car use, your insurance rates go SKY HIGH. Basically they hit the reset button and put you back to the same rate as someone who's never driven at all. :eek: I'm a 34 year old woman with a spotless driving record, but because I have not had my name on a car insurance policy since 2005, they want to charge me the same yearly insurance rate as a 16 year old boy!! That's what I get for trying to be green.... :rolleyes:

So if you're going carfree/car light in Alberta, this might be something to keep in mind. It might not be a bad idea to try to have your name on a family member's car insurance just so you don't get totally soaked later on.

(The reason I wanted insurance was that I'm starting a craft business and it's a little hard to transport everything to the farmer's market by bike (at least until I get that Xtracycle built, and that IS in the works). My boyfriend tried to put me on his policy as an occasional driver and the insurance company promptly tripled his premiums. We are rather annoyed, needless to say! :mad: *moves Xtracycle up priority list*)
The answer is simple! Move to BC; ICBC will base your rate on your driving record as reflected on your driving licence. It doesn't matter if you have never had a car insured in your name.

Alternatively, you may want to check other insurers in Alberta; I'd be surprised if you can't find one with a more sensible approach than your previous insurer.

David

[adgrant]

Good for Alberta. This policy encourages people who become car free to stay car free.

It will also encourage others not to go car free in the first place.

[notfred]

They do this in California, too, but there's absolutely no way for them to know if you were previously insured with a different company.

So, you've been continually insured every day since you turned 16, unless you tell them otherwise.

[timmhaan]

They do this in California, too, but there's absolutely no way for them to know if you were previously insured with a different company.

So, you've been continually insured every day since you turned 16, unless you tell them otherwise.

really? the last time i got insurance, i had to submit information from my old carrier so they could verify. this was with progressive in oregon.

[lyeinyoureye]

I believe keeping insurance w/ the minimum in terms of mileage driven per year can be very beneficial because of the $250,000 worth of uninsured motorist insurance.

[Buglady]

Joking, I hope?

The policy is idiotic, and frankly insulting. It's based on the assumption that people who have spent any time without a car are irresponsible and untrustworthy.

I am curious about one thing, though. Buglady, after you buy your new policy, how long do they leave you in the high-risk category? Integrated over time, do you end up paying more in rate surcharges than you saved by not buying insurance for a couple of years?

You've put your finger on it, I think. I AM feeling rather insulted, to be honest! I don't know how long they leave you in the high-risk category, something I will have to find out this week. Needless to say, we are doing some intensive shopping aroun for a new insurance carrier (or we will, as soon as The Boy stops swearing and threatening to set all the insurance offices on fire. They don't take kindly to that so I think he'd better get it out of his system first...)

I cannot believe that they don't look at your actual driving record or anything. Basically they have turned what was supposed to be a system to offer financial incentives to drive safely into a system of sheer extortion.

[Buglady]

The answer is simple! Move to BC; ICBC will base your rate on your driving record as reflected on your driving licence. It doesn't matter if you have never had a car insured in your name.

Alternatively, you may want to check other insurers in Alberta; I'd be surprised if you can't find one with a more sensible approach than your previous insurer.

David

I actually moved here from BC a couple of years ago. Everyone there screams about ICBC so much, I can't believe I've found a system that manages to be worse.

Definitely will be shopping around, but the first three quotes I got all said the same thing. "You haven't had insurance for two years, you have to pay extra now." :mad:

[wahoonc]

Insurance companies are on my short list if I ever decide to go postal/anarchistic. We had a MAJOR loss over 2 years ago and are still trying to settle. FWIW it was a business loss, but the local adjuster has played so many games that we have grounds for a lawsuit and can treble the damages if we win:D I sometimes think the odds are better in Las Vegas...as least they don't try to make you feel all warm and fuzzy before they put the screws to you. [/rant]

Aaron:)

[Jerseysbest]

Terrible thing about insurance is I realize that they are a business and they try to make money, but they always take things to another level and squeeze out every dollar they can while staying competitive.

Some of the tactics used are warranted although they might seem unfair, but some are just blatant grabs for money.

[niknak]

My boyfriend tried to put me on his policy as an occasional driver and the insurance company promptly tripled his premiums. We are rather annoyed, needless to say! :mad: *moves Xtracycle up priority list*)

Your boyfriend may not have needed to put you on his insurance policy in the first place. In my experience in California, as long as the car is insured by someone and you have permission to drive that someone's car, even if you drive it all the time, then there's no need for you to be on the policy. This is fortunate for my 17-year-old sister who unofficially bought my car, although my name is still on the insurance policy. She pays A LOT less for insurance that way.:p

When you get married, however, your spouse is automatically added to the policy.

Maybe Alberta has different rules...

[Buglady]

Because it's a leased car, I think everyone who drives it has to be named on the policy. I'm not totally sure of that, but the insurers did say that if my name was not on the policy, The Boy would have to sign a statement that I would never be driving the car, and if I DID drive it and anything happened, the insurance policy would be void. It's pretty draconian.

However, I think I'm going to have to suck it up and pay my share of the premiums, because I have two shows this weekend and there's simply no way on God's green earth I can get two tables' worth of merchandise where they need to be without driving.

[AStomper]

I always have my car in my dads name and insure it in his name. What they do is automatically assume that anyone with a license residing with you will be using your vehicle. I don't live with him so they assume I won't be driving it.
Have you thought of a storage insurance for classic cars where you pay like 100 bucks a year to insure for storage and then call up and leave a message before you drive and pay by the hour?

[bike2math]

This again brings up the point that the real savings in going car-free is not the missed oppurtunities to have to buy gas but rather from not needing insurance.

I mean if you think about it insurance is an incredible racket: First you write up a policy with tons of loop holes so you can avoid paying out as often as possible (use an example from your compettor to get you started); then you satisfy some half hearted atempt by the state and feds to make sure you have enough collateral to back claims and that your policy meets some minimum standard of morals (something above 'absolute pure evil' and below 'soul-sucking darkness'); then you take money from people for years and years raising the rates every couple of years; then when they finally have an accident you drop them, refuse to pay out what is owed (using your now very fortuitous loop hole and let them deal with the resulting lawsuit).

In the end just on that one customer you've made a fortune with minimal overhead.

[wahoonc]

Your boyfriend may not have needed to put you on his insurance policy in the first place. In my experience in California, as long as the car is insured by someone and you have permission to drive that someone's car, even if you drive it all the time, then there's no need for you to be on the policy. This is fortunate for my 17-year-old sister who unofficially bought my car, although my name is still on the insurance policy. She pays A LOT less for insurance that way.:p

When you get married, however, your spouse is automatically added to the policy.

Maybe Alberta has different rules...
It may depend on the insurance company. My daughter drives a car that is registered to me, if she drives any of our vehicles more than a couple of times a year she HAS to be listed on the policy. My MIL drives my wife's vehicle quite regularly...she HAS to be listed on the policy or they could not cover and accident because they would consider it an unauthorized driver. Like I said insurance companies are not my favorite to deal with. I really think they make it difficult on purpose to get out of paying a claim on a technicality.

Aaron:)

[Bikepacker67]

Gee... you'd think that insurers in Alberta would concern themselves with their oily nouveau riche (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070814/speeding_Calgary_070814/20070814?hub=TopStories)...

[Buglady]

There are a LOT of crazy idiot drivers here, I have to say, many of them with FAR too much money. Deerfoot Trail is bloody terrifying...

That's why I really can't figure out why they're so worried about me in a Toyota Matrix, for heaven's sake.

[viola]

I'm sorry you ended up in this situation - I used to work in the auto insurance industry, so maybe I can try to explain where they are coming from.

Unfortunately the rates are not based on assumptions or beliefs about people who don't drive for a period of time. Legally, the insurance companies have to be able to back up their rates with statistics. If they are charging higher rates for people whose insurance has lapsed in the past, it's because statistically they have bad experience with this group, for whatever reason. I would guess that the people who fall into this group for legitimate reasons, like you Buglady, or someone who traveled abroad for a year, are far, far outnumbered by people who have lost their license for DUI or people who have had a car repossessed, and these people are brining the whole category down statistically. In the auto industry the statistical models are usually quite good, because they have a LOT of data and it's usually fairly predictable. Of course it's not fair to you, and they're not actually worried about you specifically, but they have to group people somehow or else their business wouldn't be able to function.

Not trying to defend insurance companies, but I do try to point out that their rates have based on data and they are not just charging everyone as much as they can because they're evil. I would encourage you to shop around for a different company. Look for a company that asks a lot of questions in your rating interview, because more questions means they are using a more sophisticated model with more variables.

[gwd]

I used to work in the auto insurance industry, so maybe I can try to explain where they are coming from.



Nice, concise explanation.

[AStomper]

about who's covered, From my experience in Michigan the car is covered, along with any driver that drives it other than ones that explicitly state that they will not. In Ohio, it seems that the person is covered, on whatever car that they drive. Not positive about this and really you might be able to call a lawyer or a friend that works with insurance and get some good advice. BTW, ask the lawyer if you can buy an hour of his time so he puts some effort into it.

[Buglady]

Thanks for the explanation, Viola. I just wish they would take ACTUAL driving history into account (as I was used to in BC - there is only one auto insurance company there, which is provincially owned, and they had rate tables that took variables such as age, gender, car type, license hisory, etc), rather than an oversimplified system that lumps all non-drivers in with the suspended-license people!

[Smallwheels]

In every U.S. city I've lived in there was a car rental agency. They have SUVs and vans for rent. U-Haul rents small trucks or vans for $19.99/ day plus gas and any insurance you choose to add. Certainly that would be much cheaper for the short term than paying triple for car insurance.

Are there such companies in your city?

[CommuterRun]

When in the military, someone gets stationed overseas for three years and doesn't keep a car insured in the U.S., their rates do the same thing on their return. New driver rates. They can request a letter from their overseas insurance company saying they were insured the entire time, but it's up to their new insurance company, upon returning, whether the company is going to honor that letter or charge the higher rates.

When I returned from three years in Okinawa I had such a letter, showing no claims made, and even though I had two cars insured the entire time I was there, my new company still wanted contact info for my old U.S. company (no claims with them either) and it still took a decision by a higher up in the company for me and my wife to not be insured as new drivers.

I think it's just another scam insurances companies use to charge higher rates.

[heywood]

It's 'extorsion'...plain & simple

Cheers!

[bpohl]

You've put your finger on it, I think. I AM feeling rather insulted, to be honest! I don't know how long they leave you in the high-risk category, something I will have to find out this week. Needless to say, we are doing some intensive shopping aroun for a new insurance carrier (or we will, as soon as The Boy stops swearing and threatening to set all the insurance offices on fire. They don't take kindly to that so I think he'd better get it out of his system first...)

I cannot believe that they don't look at your actual driving record or anything. Basically they have turned what was supposed to be a system to offer financial incentives to drive safely into a system of sheer extortion.

I don't know if you have access to State Farm up there, but I found State Farm was more than 50% cheaper than the rest for this very reason. They just took my driving record as it was when assigning my insurace rate. Every other company wanted to make a big deal out of the fact that I had not been insured under my name in over five yers.

[asashoryu]

How it works in the UK is you get "no-claims bonus" discounts off your insurance for the length of time you have gone without claiming.

This only takes into account driving you have done on your own personal insurance policy. So even though I have done a lot of driving in the 12 years since I passed my test, without one single accident or claim, that driving has all been on someone else's insurance, or on rental car insurance, or on insurance in a different country.

If I ever bought a car, I would have a massive insurance bill.

Another good reason not to!

[Buglady]

We ended up finding a different insurance agent who was able to find us a loophole for me to be an occasional driver. Thank goodness!! If nothing else, it means that The Boy does not always have to drive when we go on longer car trips. I'm perfectly happy to bike around town but the whole point of leasing this particular car was so that I could drive too when needed. (His previous car was a manual transmission and I can't drive standard).

To the poster who suggested car rentals - that's something I kept in mind when I lived on my own with no access to a car, but it seems silly to rent a car when we already have a perfectly good one! Besides, my craft table needs to be set up every weekend and at $20 a day that adds up extremely quickly...

[adgrant]

Unfortunately the rates are not based on assumptions or beliefs about people who don't drive for a period of time. Legally, the insurance companies have to be able to back up their rates with statistics. If they are charging higher rates for people whose insurance has lapsed in the past, it's because statistically they have bad experience with this group, for whatever reason. I would guess that the people who fall into this group for legitimate reasons, like you Buglady, or someone who traveled abroad for a year, are far, far outnumbered by people who have lost their license for DUI or people who have had a car repossessed, and these people are brining the whole category down statistically. In the auto industry the statistical models are usually quite good, because they have a LOT of data and it's usually fairly predictable. Of course it's not fair to you, and they're not actually worried about you specifically, but they have to group people somehow or else their business wouldn't be able to function.

Not trying to defend insurance companies, but I do try to point out that their rates have based on data and they are not just charging everyone as much as they can because they're evil. I would encourage you to shop around for a different company. Look for a company that asks a lot of questions in your rating interview, because more questions means they are using a more sophisticated model with more variables.

Insurance companies have access to driving records so DUIs would show up separately. They also have access to credit reports so people who have had their cars repossed would also show up seperately. The insurance industry may have access to a lot of data, pity they don't know how to analyze it properly.

[sestivers]

I'm not sure if it's an option in Canada, but in the US you can get a "non-owner" policy to maintain continuous coverage. It is simply the minimum amount of liability coverage, which for me costs about $10 per month. It follows you no matter what car you drive (so you would not need to purchase a rental company's liability insurance). It is hardly the perfect situation for someone who essentially never drives, but it's probably the most cost effective way.

[Buglady]

I don't think anything like that exists here. Insurance follows the vehicle, not the driver.

[anielsen]

I don't think anything like that exists here. Insurance follows the vehicle, not the driver.

I don't know about Canada, but I hear this a lot in the US and it's only partially true. The car's insurance insures the owner for liability. It does not necessarily insure a non-owner driver for their liability nor will it necessarily cover a non-owner driver if they are required to show proof of insurance during a traffic stop. Also as a non-owner driver you may want larger liability limits than the owner carries.

[wahoonc]

I don't know about Canada, but I hear this a lot in the US and it's only partially true. The car's insurance insures the owner for liability. It does not necessarily insure a non-owner driver for their liability nor will it necessarily cover a non-owner driver if they are required to show proof of insurance during a traffic stop. Also as a non-owner driver you may want larger liability limits than the owner carries.

It will also vary from state to state. People quite often forget that at least in the US there are at least 50 different government entities that take the responsibility for mandating insurance coverage. In NC it is nearly impossible to get a non driver policy. And you are required to have insurance to get a license. The only way around that requirement is to get a license that is stamped for "commercial use only" and if you get caught driving a personal vehicle of any sort there is a pretty steep penalty. I asked my insurance agency about a non-driver policy and they hemmed and hawed and said they would have to get back to me. They did eventually did and suggested that I utilize my homeowners general liability insurance. I pointed out that it did not cover "normal" automotive driving but was a supplement to an in force automobile policy. They did finally give me a quote for a non-driver insurance policy...at about 3 times what I currently pay for my full coverage automotive policy. I let it drop at that point.

The entire insurance industry is over due for a major overhaul...but that is another rant.

Aaron:)

[adgrant]

I'm not sure if it's an option in Canada, but in the US you can get a "non-owner" policy to maintain continuous coverage. It is simply the minimum amount of liability coverage, which for me costs about $10 per month. It follows you no matter what car you drive (so you would not need to purchase a rental company's liability insurance). It is hardly the perfect situation for someone who essentially never drives, but it's probably the most cost effective way.

Who is your insurance carrier? I just went completely car free and I am now dealing with the question of insurance. I am concerned about liability coverage when I rent a car. State mandated minimums are too low to offer any real protection so I need real liability coverage. You can get supplemental from many car rental places but not Zip car (I should start a thread about the darkside of Zipcar). I would also like to maintain continous coverage (in case I move to a less car free friendly place).

[Buglady]

I don't know about Canada, but I hear this a lot in the US and it's only partially true. The car's insurance insures the owner for liability. It does not necessarily insure a non-owner driver for their liability nor will it necessarily cover a non-owner driver if they are required to show proof of insurance during a traffic stop. Also as a non-owner driver you may want larger liability limits than the owner carries.

No, in Canada it is true that insurance follows the car (it is required for registration in almost every province - you can't get a license plate for your car until you have insurance). It is then the responsibility of the car's owner to make sure all the drivers are named on the insurance policy. If a non-owner driver is in an accident, and has not been authorised by the owner, then the insurance company may refuse to pay, but I have not heard of this happening very often. I have not been able to find any insurance companies which will insure a driver independent of car ownership. (Car rental and car share agencies operate under a different set of rules).

[gwd]

You can get supplemental from many car rental places but not Zip car (I should start a thread about the darkside of Zipcar).

Please share your experiences with the darkside of Zipcar. Friends say I should sign up. I've heard the good. Maybe others have also had bad experiences.

[makeinu]

All insurance providers don't operate in the same way do they? Aren't there any which are willing to take into account the reality of the situation in order to obtain your business?

Have you thought of a storage insurance for classic cars where you pay like 100 bucks a year to insure for storage and then call up and leave a message before you drive and pay by the hour?

I'd like more information on this.

I'm sorry you ended up in this situation - I used to work in the auto insurance industry, so maybe I can try to explain where they are coming from.

Unfortunately the rates are not based on assumptions or beliefs about people who don't drive for a period of time. Legally, the insurance companies have to be able to back up their rates with statistics. If they are charging higher rates for people whose insurance has lapsed in the past, it's because statistically they have bad experience with this group, for whatever reason. I would guess that the people who fall into this group for legitimate reasons, like you Buglady, or someone who traveled abroad for a year, are far, far outnumbered by people who have lost their license for DUI or people who have had a car repossessed, and these people are brining the whole category down statistically. In the auto industry the statistical models are usually quite good, because they have a LOT of data and it's usually fairly predictable. Of course it's not fair to you, and they're not actually worried about you specifically, but they have to group people somehow or else their business wouldn't be able to function.

Not trying to defend insurance companies, but I do try to point out that their rates have based on data and they are not just charging everyone as much as they can because they're evil. I would encourage you to shop around for a different company. Look for a company that asks a lot of questions in your rating interview, because more questions means they are using a more sophisticated model with more variables.

Oh boy. The data itself doesn't say anything. It's just data.

The job of a statistician is to posit a statistical model to fit the data. Then, given the model and the data, one can draw statistical conclusions. However, everything hinges on the assumption that the model is correct. Given that the assumed models are leading to the kind of egregious errors we see here, they, obviously, can't be that good.

The problem with statistics is that similar models can give vastly different answers for the same data. This makes it easy to cheat by starting with a reasonable model and then massaging it until you get the answer you want (and then blaming the answer on the data). That's what the insurance companies do. They are charging everyone as much as they can and subtle statistical "mistakes" are the means by which they are doing it.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Mark Twain

[adgrant]

Please share your experiences with the darkside of Zipcar. Friends say I should sign up. I've heard the good. Maybe others have also had bad experiences.

There are a few relatively minor problems with Zip car and one huge problem.

The minor problems are

1) The car you reserved may become unavailable shortly before you pick it up.
2) When you pickup the car it is often dirty, damaged and with mechanical defects.
3) To ensure a car at the weekend you need to book weeks in advance and pay more than you would with a conventional rental agency.

I have been a member of Zipcar for three months and experianced problem 2 the only time I have actually gone through with a rental. Another time I attempted to rent I experianced problem 1 but I was able to switch to Hertz.

The major problem with Zipcar that most "Zipsters" are not aware of but need to be is their liability insurance policy (their policy is to provide no liability coverage beyond legally mandated minimums). The reason most people are not aware of the liabilty insurance problem is Zipcar doesn't go out of their way to draw attention to the issue. The legally mandated minimum liability coverages are alarmingly low in most states and Zipcar's policy provides coverage at the state level required in the state the accident occurs which could be lower than the state you picked the Zipcar up in. For example, pick up a Zipcar in Mahattan and drive it to Ikea in New Jersey and you will only be covered for only $5,000 worth of property damage while in NJ so if you rear end a BMW or Mercedes on the Turnpike you may find yourself writing a check to cover some of the damage (this has actually happened to Zipcar customers).

Zipcar would point out that other car rental companies (e.g. Hertz) provide the same basic liability coverage but those other companies offer supplemental liability coverage to their customers which will provide adequate levels of protection for most people. Most Hertz customers don't need the extra coverage because they have cars and are already covered by their own insurance policy. Zipcar however, markets itself as an alternative to car ownership for urban residents so many of its customers actually do need decent liability insurance which Zipcar does not offer.

If you don't own a car but do have assets and want to use Zipcar you will need a non-owners liability insurance policy. That will cost more than liability insurance for a car owner but should count as continous insurance coverage should you ever need to insure a car again. If you have significant assets (such as an apartment in Manhattan) you would probably want an umbrella policy on top of a non-owner auto policy. Geico just quoted me about $1000 a year for a $2 million umbrella policy combined with with a $300,000 non-owner auto policy ($1 million less in coverage only saved about $140 a year). Allstate (my current insurer) does not offer a non-owner auto policy.

Zipcar does have a couple of advantages over Hertz et al.

1) They rent out decent imported cars, if you rent from Hertz you could end up in a Ford Taurus or Chevy Areo.

2) You can pickup and drop off the car anytime of day or night. Hertz in Manhattan closes at 11pm, some places close even earlier.

[sestivers]

Who is your insurance carrier?

I have USAA. I'm not sure if you're eligible... USAA eligibility is probably the single greatest benefit of military service.

Also, remember to rent the car using your Visa card, and you will be automatically covered for collision... no need to get the damage waiver. http://usa.visa.com/personal/cards/benefits/bft_dmg_waiver_personal.html

[Spaceman Spiff]

Good for Alberta. This policy encourages people who become car free to stay car free.
I would say the number of car free people who stay car free because of this policy are far outnumbered by those who never go car free in the first place because of this policy.

[cadillacmike68]

Your boyfriend may not have needed to put you on his insurance policy in the first place. In my experience in California, as long as the car is insured by someone and you have permission to drive that someone's car, even if you drive it all the time, then there's no need for you to be on the policy. This is fortunate for my 17-year-old sister who unofficially bought my car, although my name is still on the insurance policy. She pays A LOT less for insurance that way.:p

When you get married, however, your spouse is automatically added to the policy.

Maybe Alberta has different rules...

As soon as your sister has an accident you'll find out the folly of this path. In most states, and most likely in CA as well, if a person is livinig in the same household that person must be on the auto insurance policy or the company can DENY any coverage for that person. If they found out about the "unofficial purchase" you could be in for an even worse time with them. So pray that she doeasn't have an accident.

[cadillacmike68]

I have USAA. I'm not sure if you're eligible... USAA eligibility is probably the single greatest benefit of military service.

Also, remember to rent the car using your Visa card, and you will be automatically covered for collision... no need to get the damage waiver. http://usa.visa.com/personal/cards/benefits/bft_dmg_waiver_personal.html

USAA All the way!

BTW using MasterCard (USAA Bank issues mastercards) to rent a car also provides the same insurance coverage. I had to research this before going to Spain last month because I didn't want to pay an EXTRA 400 Euros for "damage waiver" !!!